New Bill to Teach CONSTITUTION in School!

Yeah, even 10 years ago (it's been that long???) I had a Government class that spent a six-week period on the Constitution. I wonder if those who would like to rule over this country are really happy about the kiddies being more educated about the limits to their power.
 
And how does the left teach the Bill of Rights?

Follow the links given. Gives you an idea.

Such as, "the 2nd amendment is for the states national guard".

Wayne
 
I would think that making curricular requirements would be more effective then setting aside a certain date. What if the school already teaches a good deal about the Constitution, but September 17th just isn't a convenient time? Heck, what if September 17th is a weekend?

Regardless, if a school doesn't like it they can just put a teacher workday there.
 
I remember way back in middle school when I took a history class and it actually talked about the Constitution. Granted it was only like 1 question on a test but at least they mentioned it.
 
I teach (along with the district as a whole) the Bill of Rights and breifly touch on the constitution (in a historical context) to 5th graders. No bias toward political tendencies, but in complete support of the parts and processes.

It is not glossed over. I bet my students know it better than most US born adults.

Then (as the Texas legislature deemed fit) the students get another dose in high school - 11th grade I believe. That one includes civil duties and moral issues. I am not aware of any anti-gun slant, but I know it would not be acceptable if it were taught. Texas parents would be "up in arms" as should be.

I do not view my job as one of instilling political view points, but I openly admit I hunt and use firearms.

EDIT: We spend considerable time teaching this aspect, not one day!
 
Whose Version of the Constitution?

Sounds great, until you start getting to specifics. For instance, a very popular American history textbook for college and AP courses has a handy annotated version of the Constitution in the back of each volume of the book. The annotations are inserted in and around the actual text of the Constitution, and/or in footnotes to "aid" students in understanding the document and to cross reference other events in history that were important to the development of a particular passage.

Sound great, right? Until you get to the Second Amendment. Here's the Second Amendment as it reads in the annotated version (note the annotations in brackets):

Amendment II. [Right to Bear Arms]
[The people may bear arms.] A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed.

And here's the footnote that follows the text:

"The courts, with 'militia' in mind, have consistently held that the 'right' to bear arms is a limited one."

Of course, only some courts have held that RKBA is limited, only some people feel compelled to belittle the RKBA by putting the word right in quotation marks etc. But these authors don't bother to tell students about these other points of view.

So, my point is, under the guise of "teaching" the Constitution, unscrupulous educators and scholars (like the authors of the above-mentioned textbook) are really just indoctrinating wave after wave of students to a particular view of the Constitution. I'd rather not have a day devoted to the teaching of the Constitution unless there are some guarantees of ideological balance.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully it is not a butched or altered constitution that they learn from. Hopefully they get to read it as it was written, and form their own opinion. I know that if it passes, and my childrens school adopts it, I will volunteer my time on that day to come in and 'help out'. Should be interesting. Especially in the high school area....
 
If you do so remember not to force your opinion on anyone else..... we can all fall into that trap.... thus becoming what it is that we dislike.....

Make sure to present both sides, good luck!

(Although I will be surprised if they allow you to unless it is a small district :( )

My AP US History teacher in Highschool happened to be a Republican and a gun owner, and although I agreed with his views I was not satisfied with the way he put bias on everything he taught. The same rules should apply both ways :cool: .
 
The Constitution should be an integral part of every American history and civics curriculum - as should the State Constitutions. We do need legislation prohibiting the indoctrination in schools of political ideologies that are hostile to the United States Constitution.
-----------------------------------------------

http://ssunitedstates.org
 
LAK Wrote:

The Constitution should be an integral part of every American history and civics curriculum - as should the State Constitutions. We do need legislation prohibiting the indoctrination in schools of political ideologies that are hostile to the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

Lak, I must say, for once I completely agree with you. Well said.....
 
Teachers will teach the class based on their own agendas and the students will feel that there is legitmacy to those views because it was taught in school. Take it from me, class of 2000... Nothing remotely political reaches the students without clear teacher agendas. Infact i have had test questions which could be right when answered using the teacher's rhetoric, but wrong if answered without the teacher's bias.

Now as a college student, this is the case in every class, every semester. History, geography, computer applications, mathematics, art appreciation, geology - all involve political discussion including but not limited to Bush's policies, the war in iraq, denouncement of guns in general and praise for illegal aliens who enrich our nation. College students should have an open mind, but most accept every word from their mouth because of a percieved authenticity being from a "professor" and all. And its the same rhetoric they've been hearing their whole lives, as have I.

Point is - It sounds like a good idea, but it will backfire.

As vitesse9 said-
Amendment II. [Right to Bear Arms]
[The people may bear arms.] A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms [i.e. for military purposes] shall not be infringed.

And here's the footnote that follows the text:

"The courts, with 'militia' in mind, have consistently held that the 'right' to bear arms is a limited one."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top